Originally Posted by
Ottolillienthal
Latest CAL MEC blastmail.....not sure what is going on............
FROM THE CHAIRMAN
Last week, rather than write my typical Friday brief, I instead published the CAL MEC’s statement to all United Continental Holdings (UCH) pilots. In that letter, the MEC recognized the deep anger and frustration felt by all pilots over the length of time it has taken to begin making real progress in negotiations. We committed to supporting actions that we believe are well thought out and that will realistically influence a prompt JCBA resolution. And we included a requirement, in the interests of the Continental pilots, that we work in partnership with the UAL MEC to reach a JCBA that meets all of our pilots’ goals. Our goal remains steadfast — to negotiate a quality contract for all UCH pilots in as timely a fashion as possible. This week, I want to expand on what we said last week.
One of the basic tenets the MEC agreed to last week was that we will support ideas, tactics or strategies that we believe are well thought out and will positively affect our ability to achieve a quality contract. This concept, by its nature, requires that the ideas, tactics and strategies be evaluated on their merits and considered absent emotion or political motivation. This includes seeking a release (beginning with a proffer of arbitration) from the National Mediation Board (NMB), which must be compared against those criteria. Your CAL MEC has used these fundamentals internally in formulating strategies and plans over its history. As part of our letter from Friday, we sought to carry this concept forward, stating that the two Master Chairmen must agree on standards for major negotiating initiatives such as, and including, the Heppner Plan announced last week.
This is not new ground to be covered. We used this concept and met those standards recently, when both Master Chairmen, the NMB and management agreed to a negotiating process with a goal of completing terms of the JCBA by mid-June. For some time now, we have been working to speed up the negotiations and bring the highest levels of management to the table. In the end, all parties agreed to a process, which again, was designed to outline the terms of the JCBA by mid-June. The JNC has found good success by using small groups of negotiators and SMEs to problem-solve and negotiate solutions. Since that process is functioning well, we worked to find ways to expand on its success, including tightening the timeline within each small group. There are times that in these settings, solutions acceptable to the pilot group are not found. Thus, we agreed to establish a hierarchy (the JNC, then the JNC Co-Chairs, and then the MEC Chairmen, along with their management counterparts), to work contentious problems toward solutions. This way, difficult issues will not be left to churn at the table, impeding progress. In essence, this is a mechanism that ensures access to the resources and decision-makers needed for complex problem-solving. In order for this to work, there has to be a real commitment from the JNC, the Master Chairmen and management to constantly monitor progress and act on issues that need attention. The NMB, in its oversight role, monitors the parties to ensure each is honoring its commitments and to apply pressure should one of them (for instance, management) drag their feet.
Following the announcement of the Heppner Plan, there was concern from the CAL MEC and all of our advisors (inside and outside ALPA) that the plan could produce a negative reaction from the NMB. There is a well-defined process under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) to appropriately achieve release, and I think it is a valid concern that the NMB might look poorly on those who seek to shortcut or circumvent it, especially when those attempts are announced publicly. No one likes to be perceived as being coerced, especially a governmental agency that is intended to remain immune from undue influence in order to perform its mission. Of course the NMB will avoid even a hint that releases are available to the highest bidder. We are concerned that instead of helping us, this tactic could backfire and actually damage the support we have spent years building within the NMB; or worse yet, delay our ability to seek release at the time most opportune for completion of the JCBA. NMB release, as described as the goal in the Heppner Plan, should not be the goal. The goal should be getting the JCBA done — with the right contract, not just any contract.
In the past week, due to reports I received regarding the NMB’s negative reaction to the public announcements made by Chairman Heppner, I reached out to the NMB with our assurances that the CAL MEC remains committed to the process we all agreed upon just a few weeks ago. I affirmed our understanding of and support for their authority under the RLA, including if we (now or in the future) seek additional support, including a request for release to self-help. I am pleased that they seem willing to look past the public statements made and to move forward to continue work on the JCBA under the previously agreed-upon process. In fact, we are working on a plan to enter into a two-week period of intense negotiations overseen by the highest levels of the NMB. Through this style of “end game” negotiations, we can work quickly to pare down the number of open items. We can begin to paint a picture where release could be used viably as a tool to get the contract done. This also provides the NMB an opportunity to evaluate the commitment by management to negotiate to a conclusion instead of dragging their feet.
The CAL MEC remains committed to working in partnership with the UAL MEC. We expect that same commitment from the UAL MEC. In last Friday’s meeting, the MEC directed me to work with Capt. Heppner to develop a protocol that will spell out the conditions necessary for us to seek a release to self-help. This protocol can also serve as an understanding that major negotiating initiatives must be agreed to by both MECs if they are to be successful. As we said in our statement, “Any strategy for achieving a fair contract on a timely basis must include solidarity and open communication between the pilot groups.” The MEC also directed me to meet with the lobbyist hired by the UAL MEC and report back.
Toward that end, beginning last Friday night, I reached out to Capt. Heppner several times via email and phone to set up a meeting to start on the protocol and meet with their lobbyist. On Tuesday evening of this week, I finally received his rejection to both my meeting request and the CAL MEC’s stipulation that we develop negotiating strategies in partnership. Simply put, his refusal to discuss the protocol the CAL MEC insists upon attempts to deny CAL pilots, through their leadership, a voice in this major negotiating initiative. By default, he is saying that he will continue to set negotiating policy, independent of the CAL MEC or the JNC, neither of whom approved of or were included in the development or implementation of the Heppner Plan.
This single-handed approach will not work. In contract negotiations, unity is our leverage and we must work together. With that in mind, this past weekend I also sent Capt. Heppner suggested dates in May for a joint meeting of the MECs. To address our legal concerns with the UAL MEC’s TPA grievance over our participation in 2011 profit sharing, I additionally included some minor stipulations for the meeting. Regrettably, Capt. Heppner refused to address our concerns or agree to any of the dates I suggested. However, because a partnered approach is vital to the success of this effort, I will continue to try and get a joint meeting scheduled and to work with the UAL leadership. Our pilots, all 12,000 of them, deserve nothing less.
In closing, my preference would have been to report to you that following our MEC meeting last Friday, I contacted the UAL MEC leadership and we agreed to meet to discuss the CAL MEC’s concerns and perspective. I wish I could say that I met with their lobbyist and that those concerns were addressed to our satisfaction. I wish I could say that the two Master Chairmen sat down and hammered out the criteria for a request for release by the NMB that included the concept of partnership between the MECs going forward. I would prefer to report that we had been able to put in place some basic rules for a joint meeting, and that the meeting is scheduled for May. I wish I could say that the voice of the CAL pilots is well represented in the Heppner Plan and we are moving forward together as 12,000 pilots.
It saddens me to no end that I am unable to report any of this. I can only say that the CAL MEC remains committed to a true partnership based on respect and inclusion, and that I will continue to work towards achieving that partnership. We will not, however, give the UAL MEC or anyone else a blank check to be written against the CAL pilots’ future. We will continue to honor our commitment to the process agreed to by the MECs, the NMB and management that was designed to reach terms of a deal by mid-June. We will continue our attempts to advance the plan already contemplated for two weeks of expedited negotiations beginning in May.
The decisions of the UAL MEC leadership this week do not mean that we stop work or that we will not consider future plans, so long as they have merit. Our goal is to reach a JCBA that meets the needs of our pilots, as quickly as possible. We do not care who comes up with a good idea, only that it is vetted properly to ensure it is a good idea. There will be many more plans and many more strategies suggested. I hope that they are allowed to mature and ripen to usefulness through joint action; because, I repeat, any strategy for achieving a fair contract on a timely basis must include solidarity and open communication between the pilot groups.